Ratko Mladic Arrest: The Uses and Hypocrisy of U.N. “Genocide”

At times eternally relevant things, become acutely relevant. In view of all that is happening: hot wars initiated by our nominally democratic governments or their proxies (U.N., NATO) under false pretenses. Economic wars waged against sovereign countries and their populations on behalf of global financial elites of which Greece is currently a most jarring example (ECB, BIS, EU, IMF.) Or, as is the case in the US, a 30 year class war of economic attrition being escalated by Washington elites against a thoroughly indoctrinated and neutralized public whose grasp on reality is shaped by a programmed conviction that lesser evilism is a morally and ethically justifiable distinction worth edifying.

We may still remember the WMD PR that was mounted to get the public to support the international war crime that was the invasion of Iraq.

Less so, perhaps, the PR coup leading to the first Gulf War was an emotionally charged testimony given by a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl:

"[…] According to the Caucus, Nayirah's full name was being kept confidential to prevent Iraqi reprisals against her family in occupied Kuwait. Sobbing, she described what she had seen with her own eyes in a hospital in Kuwait City. Her written testimony was passed out in a media kit prepared by Citizens for a Free Kuwait. "I volunteered at the al-Addan hospital," Nayirah said. "While I was there, I saw the Iraqi soldiers come into the hospital with guns, and go into the room where . . . babies were in incubators. They took the babies out of the incubators, took the incubators, and left the babies on the cold floor to die."

Three months passed between Nayirah's testimony and the start of the war. During those months, the story of babies torn from their incubators was repeated over and over again. President Bush told the story. It was recited as fact in Congressional testimony, on TV and radio talk shows, and at the UN Security Council. "Of all the accusations made against the dictator," MacArthur observed, "none had more impact on American public opinion than the one about Iraqi soldiers removing 312 babies from their incubators and leaving them to die on the cold hospital floors of Kuwait City."

Following the war, human rights investigators attempted to confirm Nayirah's story and could find no witnesses or other evidence to support it. Amnesty International, which had fallen for the story, was forced to issue an embarrassing retraction. Nayirah herself was unavailable for comment. "This is the first allegation I've had that she was the ambassador's daughter," said Human Rights Caucus co-chair John Porter. "Yes, I think people . . . were entitled to know the source of her testimony." When journalists for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation asked Nasir al-Sabah for permission to question Nayirah about her story, the ambassador angrily refused.  —  How PR Sold the War in the Persian Gulf | Center for Media and Democracy

Between those two Bush war crimes, (had Gore become President, nothing would have been materially different). President Clinton flacked for global Oligarchy with his Yugoslavian adventure. All of these, under the Geneva and Hague Conventions, represent crimes against humanity…

So lets take a look at who is being prosecuted at the Hague—it's not the monstrous monsters—and refresh our historical perspective.





The article from which I have extracted a few excerpts deserves to be read in full, because if you are not familiar with the events beyond the feint memory of MSM "reports", you will find yourself stunned, incredulous, and likely thoroughly disgusted once you've finished.


Ratko Mladic Arrest: the Uses and Hypocrisy of U.N. "Genocide"

By Eric Pottenger and Jeff Friesen

Special Report by Color Revolutions and Geopolitics

Republished on infowars.com, globalresearch.ca,opednews.com 

June 1, 2011

The meaning behind the media response is clear: the arrest last Thursday of the so-called "Butcher of Bosnia," General Ratko Mladic, is being deliberately used as a well-timed propaganda weapon in the ongoing war by globalists against the national sovereignty of countries around the world.

A survey of the mainstream media accounts of the arrest reveal that the specific details of the crimes attributed to Mladic have been cast aside completely.  Perhaps the same will be said of his forthcoming trial in the Hague–only time will tell.  The real judgment against Mladic, however, will be formed in the court of public opinion.  And it is in this venue where indictments–usually hypocritical–and slogans–usually trite–function as evidence.  It is here where language and imagery is used to conjure up the worst genocidal massacres in world history.  There is a craft at work here.  For the audience to be effectively persuaded, emotion must take the place of reason.  All discernment must be set aside.  Only then will the stage be set to suggest how a tragedy like this can never happen again.
The real 'crime' being committed, once one understands the true motives behind the arrest, is not "crimes against humanity" but what the global elite see as the greatest threat to their power: a strong sovereign state.  The territorial violations of Libya and Pakistan should be seen in this context.  And Syria, Sudan, Yemen, and Iran could be next.  One would be wise to ignore high-sounding humanitarian appeals or justifications for dropping bombs on civilian populations.  These appeals were prepared beforehand to be used as selling points to justify aggression. 
Like Serbia twenty years ago, the "guilt" these nations share is their strength and defiance.  They represent obstacles on the path toward global governance.
The Ratko Mladic Arrest: Why Are We Suddenly Reading About Muammar Gaddafi and the "Responsibility to Protect"?
The title of an article by London Telegraph's John McTernan says it all.  Published approximately four hours after the Mladic arrest first hit the news wire, McTernan announces in bold lettering "The Arrest of Ratko Mladic Tells Muammar Gaddafi — You Can Run But You Can't Hide".  McTernan writes:
"Bit by bit, we are seeing the fulfillment of one of Tony Blair’s great reforming visions. Ashamed, as so many were, by the sight of a Tory government standing by while one million people were slaughtered in a genocide in Rwanda, and European citizens were ethnically cleansed in former Yugoslavia, Blair developed a doctrine of “liberal interventionism”. Set out in principle in his Chicago speech and in practice in Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, Kosovo and Iraq.
I had feared that the public unpopularity of the Iraq War would lead the current generation of politicians to back off from muscular intervention. I’m glad to say I was wrong, and both David Cameron and Ed Miliband were swift and strong to urge and back intervention in Libya. This is the first UN sanctioned action under the doctrine of  Responsibility to Protect, itself Blairism in action.
For Colonel Gaddafi’s Libyan regime, the significance of today’s arrest is enormous. Gaddafi must clearly see that he will be brought to justice. And he is very unlikely to have as long as fifteen years on the run – it’s harder now to hide than it was in the 1990s. Now, more than ever, he should be looking for a negotiated end to the Libyan conflict. [1]"

The breathtaking speed by which the Mladic arrest was superimposed onto Libya and the ousting of Gaddafi should be surprising, but it is not.  Nor is it surprising McTernan made an immediate reference to the concepts of "liberal interventionism" and the "responsibility to protect."

Spencer Ackerman from wired.com begins his piece on Thursday morning by crowing, "Moammar Gaddafi better watch his back.  May is shaping up to be a terrible month to be a mass murderer."  He then provides a shadow argument in support of the "responsibility to protect" doctrine by quoting the White House's resident "humanitarian" warmonger, Samantha Power.  Ackerman quotes Power as saying:

“I had worked in Sarajevo, where Serb snipers took target practice on bundled old ladies hauling canisters of filthy water across town and where picturesque parks had been transformed into cemeteries to accommodate the deluge of young arrivals. I had interviewed emaciated men who had dropped forty and fifty pounds and who bore permanent scars from their time in Serb concentration camps…. [And yet] it never dawned on me that General Mladic would or could systematically execute every last Muslim man and boy in his custody.” [2]

Ackerman then continues:

[Power] described herself as “haunted” by both her “own failure to sound a proper early warning, and the outside world’s refusal to intervene even once the men’s peril had become obvious." [3]

​As the Special Assistant to President Barack Obama, it is Samantha Power that (many commentators argue) is the driving force behind theadministration's policy of "humanitarian war" in Libya.  Before joining the administration, in fact, Power flew around the world giving speeches about "humanitarian failures" and the "responsibility to protect."  Furthermore, her professional career began at the International Crisis Group, where she worked under the world's foremost authority on "responsibility to protect," Gareth Evans.  And so it is fitting that Ackerman chose to quote Power in this context.  Power's success was built upon the Balkan conflicts of the nineties.  Samantha Power is the self-proclaimed "genocide chick."

The effort to market this doctrine is broad-based within circles of the U.S. foreign policy elite.  Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright stays on script later that same evening during an exchange with Charlie Rose: 

CHARLIE ROSE: Where are we in this idea of when it is that nations are prepared to invade another nation`s sovereignty because of crimes against humanity taking place?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Charlie, I think that we have learned a lot of lessons about this and, in fact, you know, people make arguments — I would not be one of them — that we did not know what was going on during World War II.

There is a new doctrine that has come out as a result of more knowledge that`s called responsibility to protect. And partially the United Nations resolution on Libya is based on the idea that if the international community knows about horrors that are taking place that we have a common responsibility to [do] something about it. And NATO, frankly, is one of the very good instruments for having it take place.

It does bump up against sovereignty. It is one of the difficult aspects of this. But I think that we have acted rightly in Libya.

And the other part that is a lesson out of this that those who are responsible for murdering their people or ordering that they be murdered ultimately justice does catch up with them. It has happened with Osama bin Laden. It has happened now with Ratko Mladic and Karadzic and Milosevic and ultimately it is my belief it will catch up with those responsible for Libya — Gadhafi. And there is a movement in the prosecutor for the international criminal court has been interested in making sure that Gadhafi is labeled as somebody who has committed crimes against humanity. And the United Nations resolution is based on this responsibility that we have to each other. [4]

The reason "responsibility to protect" is so effective as a strategy doctrine is that it justifies the most irresponsible and criminal actions of the globalist community by conjuring up unthinkable horrors to a susceptible public; a pogrom of bloodshed and evil which the mind shudders to comprehend.  What can the reader of these horror stories know of actual genocide, ethnic cleansing, or mass murder?  What can any of us know of the mind of the man that has been deemed responsible for these crimes?  The mind seems to recoil from any attempt to understand, replaced instead by a powerful need to stop these atrocities at any cost.  This is the value of such a doctrine; this is why it is now used.  It is fear; propelled forward by an anxious desire to stop the impending bloodshed.  Just think: when a bloodbath is upon us, is there time to debate the differing interpretations of the events in question?  There is no time to wait for a more thorough investigation; no time to argue about whether the story is right or wrong; or about whether our supposedly outdated legal concepts need to be bent or broken.  There is only the feverish rush to stop the massacre, bolstered by the need to punish the monster that will commit it.  We must take action.  And we cannot wait.

This is exactly what the Ratko Mladic arrest stories are attempting to sell us.  Ratko Mladic is depicted as an "ethnic cleanser," a "mass murderer," a "genocidal butcher," a "war criminal," a "mastermind of massacre," and a "thug."  He has been accused of "orchestrating the biggest mass murder of civilians in Europe since the Second World War."  And by linking Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi with this man, with these adjectives, these crimes, and with the horrifying images they conjure, it is almost as if Gaddafi functions as Mladic's surrogate.  So it was appropriate that we acted resolutely in Libya.  We cannot be plagued by "collective guilt"; we cannot suffer "the consequences of Western inaction."  We cannot be forced to witness the tragic scenes of "mass graves" and "bones sticking out of the ground."  This is a "battle for humanity."  As Henry Porter reflected in the Guardian last Sunday, "for evil to triumph it is enough only for good men to do nothing."


Serbian War Guilt: When the Charge of Genocide is Built on a Lie (Srebrenica, Bosnia, 1995)

You better believe you're being lied to.  This is the Bosnian "concentration camp" image that sold the war to the world–a dirty, monstrous, sickening lie.  Please watch this three-part documentary to learn the truth behind the image; find out exactly how it was done.


What is missing from the recent articles about the genocidal war guilt of Ratko Mladic is the context in which the killings in Srebrenica took place.  This collective omission is convenient for the geopolitical purposes in which the charge of genocide has been used, both in the mid-nineties and today. [… continue reading at source: COLOR REVOLUTIONS AND GEOPOLITICS








  • Johan Meyer

    Thanks for posting the Time photo – both the blond guy in the background (Bosnians are Slavs, and plenty are blond) and the guy sitting in the bottom right look chubby, and the guy to the viewer’s right behind the foreground guy looks decently nourished. Much of the propaganda relies on not even reposting the old images – I am aware of the fraud with the barbed wire, though. I’ve bookmarked this page – I’m glad that you have an independent copy of that image.

    Unfortunately, the videos are not available in Canada. BTW KLA types in Kosovo don’t restrict themselves to selling the organs of their Kosovar Serb victims, they even destroy and displace Turks!



  • http://wagelaborer.blogspot.com wagelaborer

    Good posting.  Have you read "How America Gets Away with Murder" by Michael Mandel?
    I recommend it highly,.
    Also, "Travesty" about the "trial" of Milosevich.   This book is jaw-droppingly amazing.  How do they get away with this?

    • mc.murphy

      Thanks for the recommendations. Your “How do they get away with this?” question, is, I would imagine, quite rhetorical. We let them get away with it, but below that obvious answer lie layers of propagandistic disinformation bought and paid for with the accumulated sweat of our brows, also known as profit, or surplus-value from labor.

      How America Gets Away With Murder — http://www.scribd.com/doc/18498451/How-America-Gets-Away-With-Murder